 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they should
> not be visible when inappropriate.
They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
options." At least in Vista.
> With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
> clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
> Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
That's a fair point. Right-clicking on the actual power button should take
you to the appropriate page of the power control panel thingie.
> That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this format.
I don't understand why. Where would you put it? Does it confuse you? Do you
not know what those words mean?
>> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
>
> me to.
I'm not sure how you put six or seven options onto one button.
>> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
>> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
>> complaining about that.
>
> Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
And you have different buttons on the screen to do different things with
your PC, yet Joel is complaining he has too many buttons.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:46:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > The police couldn't
> > be bothered to investigate an ongoing kidnapping.
> I think there's more to the story than the person making the video is
> telling, because anything that mitigates the circumstances would clearly
> break his narrative.
> I would be surprised if there wasn't more to it.
That's very probably so. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if
legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the police
force, and hence show strong bias in favor of the police and use all the
excuses in the book to not to proceed.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised if
> legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
> police force,
Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
specifically requested, AFAIK).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised if
> > legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
> > police force,
> Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
> specifically requested, AFAIK).
A jury doesn't help if the case doesn't even go to court because of
some technicalities.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the police
I think it's not that so much as it is all the steps leading up to the lawsuit.
If a crime is committed by a policeman, first the police have to arrest him,
then the District Attorney (the government's prosecuting head lawyer) has to
charge him with a crime, *then* you get to go to court. But the policeman
works for the police, and the DA needs the police's cooperation to do his
job, so that's usually where it gets stymied.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:53:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:03:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I wouldn't be surprised if
>> > legal courts weren't extremely cautious about lawsuits against the
>> > police force,
>
>> Sure, but that's also why there's a jury (unless a bench trial is
>> specifically requested, AFAIK).
>
> A jury doesn't help if the case doesn't even go to court because of
> some technicalities.
In the US, it depends - in some cases, a grand jury is called to
determine whether or not there's enough evidence to go to trial.
But your point is certainly valid.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-1-2011 3:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they
>> should not be visible when inappropriate.
>
> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
> options." At least in Vista.
Hmm, I checked, I actually have Vista Machine here. totally for got that
I did not put XP on it even after finding out that some things did not
work anymore. Found my ways around it, bought a few new things and
forgot the frustration.
And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available as
a popup menu in the lower right. Next to the power of en the lock icon.
Where the power of icon according to the tooltip text does something
different from what I selected from the configuration menu. But that
might be because that only handles the physical button? I am not going
to press the buttons just to see what they do ATM. I rather have MS tell
me what is selected now.
>> With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
>> clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
>> Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
>
> That's a fair point. Right-clicking on the actual power button should
> take you to the appropriate page of the power control panel thingie.
Why put it in the power management control in the first place? Two
mostly unrelated things, at least as they designed it. You could
integrate some of the concepts, but as far as I can see they failed even
at that. So, put it under a different heading if you can not be bothered
to think.
>> That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this
>> format.
>
> I don't understand why. Where would you put it? Does it confuse you? Do
> you not know what those words mean?
I know what these words mean... In the real life context. With my
computer I am not always sure. And as I said a few times before, the
Dutch translation suggests different things than the English which adds
to the confusion. But the main thing is that if you have someone new to
the OS who is of an inquisitive mind, you have to spend 5-15 minutes
explaining a lot of concepts as shortcuts for combinations of actions.
(assuming you fully understand them yourself, otherwise you simply add
to the confusion). Please give them (and me) just those combinations and
get rid of the useless metaphors.
A minor complaint is that if you accidentally move your mouse when
selecting from the menu, it may take a few minutes to correct that, as
you can not interrupt a shutdown. (my god am I glad that most programs
now refuse to get killed if there is some unsaved data. When e.g.
blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving my
mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a meeting).
>>> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
>>
>> me to.
>
> I'm not sure how you put six or seven options onto one button.
You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and allow
easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
(ok, probably 2 buttons, one for going to the toilet or a meeting and
one for going home).
>>> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
>>> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
>>> complaining about that.
>>
>> Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
>
> And you have different buttons on the screen to do different things with
> your PC, yet Joel is complaining he has too many buttons.
He is complaining about the interface, just as I do, because it is
horrible and probably designed by an intern from a school for mentally
disabled people.
I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also change
the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully support him
for the former.
About the car: there are historical reasons for this interface. It is a
kludge but I understand where it comes from. If you design something new
there really is no excuse for this mess. Simply the fact that I had to
look up lost of things during this discussion (and am still unclear
about some details) is a clear sign that it is not designed
consistently. I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
forget something that I understand.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
>> options." At least in Vista.
> And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available as
> a popup menu in the lower right.
Yep. That would be the button now wouldn't it? ;-)
> different from what I selected from the configuration menu.
The tooltip (and even the icon) change depending on what the icon does.
> Why put it in the power management control in the first place?
It seems the obvious place to put configuration for what to do with power
buttons. Where would you put it?
In any case, what you're arguing is that the UI for selecting the right
thing could be improved. Sure, no doubt. I was objecting to Joel's
contention that the UI wasn't needed at all, because he himself only ever
did one thing with the computer.
> blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving my
> mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a
> meeting).
That's what the icon is for. :-)
> You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and allow
> easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
Or, hey, maybe we could have *another* button nearby that pops up the list
of other less-common operations you might want to perform!
> I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also change
> the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully support him
> for the former.
He clearly wants to eliminate options. He wants sleep, power, hibernate, and
reboot to all be the same option, for example.
> is a clear sign that it is not designed
> consistently.
I disagree. You just never learned it properly in the first place. It's
software. It *can* be any way you want. You have to learn the idioms.
I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
> forget something that I understand.
Then clearly you never understood it in the first place, right? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28-1-2011 0:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
>>> options." At least in Vista.
>
>> And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available
>> as a popup menu in the lower right.
>
> Yep. That would be the button now wouldn't it? ;-)
yep, that's the one I want deleted. And replaced by an intelligently
designed UI. ;)
>
>> different from what I selected from the configuration menu.
>
> The tooltip (and even the icon) change depending on what the icon does.
So why does it say something different than the thing I selected? I have
selected 'sluimerstand' (slumber) which is what you call 'hibernate'
(save status to disk and power down), if I understand correctly. The
button gives a tooltip for 'sleepmode' (keep in memory and reduce power).
>> Why put it in the power management control in the first place?
>
> It seems the obvious place to put configuration for what to do with
> power buttons. Where would you put it?
Anywhere on it's own. Not mixed up with something unrelated where I can
only find it by a) knowing it must be there b) eleminating even less
likely options
> In any case, what you're arguing is that the UI for selecting the right
> thing could be improved. Sure, no doubt. I was objecting to Joel's
> contention that the UI wasn't needed at all, because he himself only
> ever did one thing with the computer.
Not sure if that is so. But I would have to reread it to be sure.
>> blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving
>> my mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a
>> meeting).
>
> That's what the icon is for. :-)
That does not what I want apparently/possibly. I am mostly using the
menu (that I want deleted) because I am not sure what the other buttons
do. And because it changes behaviour if there is an update and when it
does I definitely do not want to select it by accident, so I try not to
get into the habit of using it. :(
>> You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and
>> allow easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
>
> Or, hey, maybe we could have *another* button nearby that pops up the
> list of other less-common operations you might want to perform!
No, that is an configuration option. Right click therefore. No new UI
elements.
>> I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also
>> change the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully
>> support him for the former.
>
> He clearly wants to eliminate options. He wants sleep, power, hibernate,
> and reboot to all be the same option, for example.
>
>> is a clear sign that it is not designed consistently.
>
> I disagree. You just never learned it properly in the first place. It's
> software. It *can* be any way you want. You have to learn the idioms.
Nope. I am using MS product for many years I normally understand what
they mean. If I don't, I blame them. In this case for introducing too
much, unnecessary and poorly defined new concepts and for hiring
incompetent translators.
> I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
>> forget something that I understand.
>
> Then clearly you never understood it in the first place, right? :-)
right, that is what I said. I think it is mainly because there is too
much inconsistent information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> So why does it say something different than the thing I selected? I have
> selected 'sluimerstand' (slumber) which is what you call 'hibernate'
> (save status to disk and power down), if I understand correctly. The
> button gives a tooltip for 'sleepmode' (keep in memory and reduce power).
I noticed those two are combined on my menu. I think this is *exactly* the
sort of confusion you get when you try to make it simpler than it really is.
Sleep mode is basically hibernate without turning off the power to the
memory. Once the fans and such stop, you can pull the plug and you'll be
fine when you boot it up.
>>> Why put it in the power management control in the first place?
>>
>> It seems the obvious place to put configuration for what to do with
>> power buttons. Where would you put it?
>
> Anywhere on it's own. Not mixed up with something unrelated where I can
> only find it by a) knowing it must be there b) eleminating even less
> likely options
If you're going to bundle up sets of options, "power" seems the right place
to put power buttons. If you want a separate control panel just for power
buttons, then you're going to have separate control panels for volume of
speakers vs volume of headphones?
In any case, search pretty much takes care of that. Put in "button" and the
control panel's first choice is "change what the power buttons do". You
click on that and it gives you a screen with two sections: "wht happens when
I push buttons", and "do I want a password when I wake up". Since you wake
up by pushing the button, I don't see the problem there.
It's totally easy to say "it's confusing to me", but unless you have a
better design, it's hard to say whether it's the design or the understanding
of the basic concepts that's wrong. For example, right-click of the power
button taking you to the power button setting page was a better design.
> That does not what I want apparently/possibly. I am mostly using the
> menu (that I want deleted) because I am not sure what the other buttons
> do. And because it changes behaviour if there is an update and when it
> does I definitely do not want to select it by accident, so I try not to
> get into the habit of using it. :(
Well, you can turn off the "change it when I get an update".
What you're really saying is "I don't like having a do-what-I-mean button,
but actually picking the option that I *do* want is too confusing"?
>>> You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and
>>> allow easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
>>
>> Or, hey, maybe we could have *another* button nearby that pops up the
>> list of other less-common operations you might want to perform!
>
> No, that is an configuration option. Right click therefore. No new UI
> elements.
It's not a configuration option if it doesn't persist past the current
operation. I already granted that changing what the main icon does with a
right-click would make sense. Changing what the pop-up-the-menu button does
with a right click makes no sense.
> Nope. I am using MS product for many years I normally understand what
> they mean. If I don't, I blame them. In this case for introducing too
> much, unnecessary and poorly defined new concepts and for hiring
> incompetent translators.
Other than "lock" and "switch user" now being synonymous (at least with the
standard login screens[*]), I don't think the concepts are unnecessary or
poorly designed by the time you get to Vista. Indeed, that's exactly what I
was objecting to in Joel's article. He thinks these options are unnecessary,
and there should just be one "close the lid" option. I disagree with that,
exactly because (A) I understand what each means and (B) I use each on a
fairly regular basis.
>> I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't
>>> forget something that I understand.
>>
>> Then clearly you never understood it in the first place, right? :-)
>
> right, that is what I said. I think it is mainly because there is too
> much inconsistent information.
It's pretty easy. "Switch user" locks the screen and takes you to the one
that asks you who you want to log in as. "Lock" locks the screen and takes
you to the one that prompts for a password. (These two could probably be
collapsed into one, but I wonder if things like smart cards or fingerprint
readers or hand-writing sign-ins or something might fiddle with one screen
or the other, providing a technical reason for having them separate.)
"Log off" terminates your programs and logs you out but leaves the machine
running. "Reboot" turns it off and back on again after logging everyone out.
"Shut down" turns it off after logging everyone out. "Sleep" writes all
memory out to disk and turns off (essentially) everything but the RAM and
wake-from-sleep devices, and eventually turns off the power if you're on
batteries. "Hibernate" (which isn't even on my menu) writes all memory out
to disk and shuts off all the power. "Install updates and shut down" does
what it says, except it skips updates that you have to manually agree to the
license terms for.
All of these are operations that have been around since laptops got a
reliable way to sleep. And they're all common terms, at least in english.
Which ones were you unsure about?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
